Cato Event Podcast

The 2014 midterm elections are being held at a time when libertarian ideas are ascending. But will more influence and media attention translate into electoral victories? Will the makeup of the next Congress be conducive or detrimental to the advancement of free markets and individual liberty? Join us for an election recap and discussion of the state of libertarian ideas in various races and prospects for the next Congress. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the proper role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution? Should the Court be "active" or "restrained"? Or is that even the proper way to look at the question, however much we've heard it put that way for several decades now? In his new book, Damon Root traces this debate from the Constitution's conception to the present. His central focus, however, is on the emergence of the modern libertarian approach, which cuts through the often sterile debate between liberals and conservatives and points to the Constitution itself by way of determining the proper role of the Court under it. Please join us for a refreshing account of this recent history. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, it was with the purpose of providing for a stable monetary and financial system. However, the Great Depression, the Great Inflation, and the Panic of 2008 serve as serious reminders of the Fed’s failure to achieve its original mission. Yet, despite this record, the Fed’s regulation of the economy has expanded. After a century, it is time to judge the Federal Reserve’s history and evaluate alternatives to central banking. To that end, the Cato Institute has established the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, which will focus on the development of policy recommendations that will create a more free-market monetary system in the United States. Please join Cato’s scholars for a discussion on how the Cato Institute’s new center seeks to educate the public and elected officials on the need for a monetary system that is consistent with the rule of law and genuine competition. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Police misconduct and abuse have been getting a lot of extra media attention lately. In just the past few months, Americans have been horrified by stories of grenades thrown in children's cribs, homeless men beaten to death, unwarranted anal probes, and more. The outrage in Ferguson underscored the rapid growth in police militarization, highlighting the perceived code of silence upheld by those behind the "thin blue line" and driving demand for more accountability among the nation's law enforcement officers. Could cameras offer a viable solution to the problems at hand?Does filming police make for more accountable law enforcement? Will on-body cameras (such as those recently adopted by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department as part of a pilot program) force accountability, or will they suffer form the same problems that have plagued existing cameras placed in police vehicles? What are your rights as a citizen journalist when it comes to filming police actions in a public space?Join us for a lunchtime discussion about technological solutions to many common complaints about police misconduct. Jonathan Blanks, a research associate in Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies and a frequent commentator on criminal justice issues, Steve Silverman who founded Flex Your Rights to improve the constitutional literacy of all Americans, and Matthew Fogg, a 32-year veteran of the United States Marshals Service, will touch upon some of the biggest victories and concerns surrounding police work and cameras. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2012, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey contended that “we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime, right now.” In 2013, he was more assertive, stating that the world is “more dangerous than it has ever been.” Is this accurate? A Dangerous World? brings together leading experts on international security to assess the supposed dangers to American security. They examine the most frequently referenced threats, including wars between nations and civil wars, and discuss the impact of rising nations, nuclear weapons proliferation, general unrest, transnational crime, and state failures. Please join us for an illuminating analysis of current and future American national security. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ben Freeth and his father-in-law, Mike Campbell, were successful Zimbabwean farmers and model employers. The family farm, purchased after Robert Mugabe came to power in 1980, was declared of “no interest” to the government in 1999. Yet they were later evicted and savagely beaten by government thugs. Mike, who would later to die from his injuries, launched a legal battle against the Zimbabwean government. He won a landmark case in the Southern African Development Community’s regional court, the SADC Tribunal in 2008. Ben will speak about the struggles of daily life and promotion of human rights, property rights and the rule of law in contemporary Zimbabwe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.